TirukKural

A commentator had said that Kural is as potent as a mustard pierced at the centre in which the waters of the seven seas are put inside! He meant to say that it is so rich in meaning!

As Dr.G.U. Pope had said it is the Bard of the Universal Man.

Two gems extolling great friendship and great books:

நிறைநீர நிறைநீரவர் கேண்மை பிறைமதிப்பின் நீர பேதையர் நட்பு 782

Nirai neera neeravar kenmai Pirai mathippin neera pethaiyar natpu.
Meaning: The friendship of the worthy develops day by day like the waxing crescent moon But the foolish alliances deteriroate like the waning thereof! Rajaji has given a crisp commetary on this kural." The friendship of men of character is like the young moon which grows as the days pass, but frindship with fools diminishes with familirity like the moon after her full pass!"

நவில்தோரும் நூல் நயம் போலும் பயில்தோரும்
பண்புடையார் தொடர்பு 783
NavilthOrum nool nayam polum payilthorum
PaNbu udaiyar thodarbu

Meaning: As one sees greater beauty and delivers enhanced pleasures from the deeper study of a book, noble friendships gain in worth and grace day by day. Deeper learning of great books and intimate friendship with great persons are both ideal for a good life.

Source: http://www.sparthasarathy.com/naunetnews/44-042007/0407kannan.html

You are your own enemy/friend

Gita ch.6 slokam 5

उद्धरेदात्मनात्मानं आत्मानमवसादयेत
आत्मैव ह्यात्मनो बन्धुरात्मैव रिपुरात्मनः

6.5 Uddharet, one should save; atmaanam, oneself sunk in the sea of the world; atmanaa, by oneself; one should save, uddharet, should uplift (oneself) from that, i.e. make it attain the state of being established in Yoga. na avasaadayet, one should not lower, debase; atmaanam, oneself.
Hi, for; atma eva, oneself is verily; atmanah one's own; bandhuh, friend. Centainly there is no other friend who can bring about liberation from this world. In fact, even a friend is an obstacle to Liberation, he being the source of such bondages as love etc.
Therefore the emphatic statement, 'For one is one's own friend, is justifiable. Atma eva, oneself verily; is atmanah, one's own: ripuh, enemy. Anyone else who is an external harmful enemy, even he is of one's own making! Therefore the firm conclusion, 'oneself verily is one's own enemy's is reasonable. It has been said that 'oneself is verily one's own friend, oneself verily is one's own enemy.' As to that, (the self), of what kind is one's own friend, or (the self) of what kind is one's own enemy?

-- English Translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary – by Swami Gambhirananda
========================

From: Ramanujcharya’s commentary: (Dr. S. Sankaranarayanan’s translation):

The figure of speech here is of Samsara as the ocean in which the individual self is like an object with liability to sink. What causes its sinking is the lingering attachments of the mind to some objects, though in the discipline of Jnana Yoga one may keep aloof from such objects. A mind with such attachments is the foe and without them, the friend.
==========================

Source: http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in

Mind in Solitude

Many are unhappy when they are alone and suffer in loneliness, leading to other ailments. How is it then that saints spend years alone, without company and attain to 'salvation'. Henry David Thoreau explains in an essay in his book 'Walden':

In solitude, I am by myself together with my inner Self and therefore two-in-one; in loneliness, I am actually one, deserted by all others. In solitude therefore, a dialogue is possible between me and myself, as it were, as is the dialogue between quotation marks in all Walden’s essays. True understanding (call it the kingdom of God, if you like) will come from within and for this you need to be left alone. -- Henry David Thoreau

In Dakshinamurti slokam, the introductory slokam explains that the learned rishis had assembled in silence to receive knowledge about the highest truth and Lord Siva explained this highest truth in a silent discourse to the receptive rishis. The inner meaning of this slokam is the same as stated by Thoreau: Learn to live in contemplative solitude; the highest knowledge will be revealed to you from within yourself.

Maunavyakhyaaprakatitaparabrahmatattvam yuvaanam
Varshishtante vasadrishiganairaavritam brahmanishthaih
Acharyendram karakalitachinmudramaanandarupam
Svaatmaaraamam muditavadanam dakshiNaamurtimiide

Solitude is learning that we are not alone when we are alone.

The Glory of Rama Nama Mantram

Slokam from Sri Vishnu Sahasranamam:





When Parvati Devi requested Lord Shiva to suggest an effective and easy alternative to chanting the thousand names of Vishnu contained in the Sahasranama, Lord Shiva replied:

"Repeat the Rama Mantram; chant Shri Rama, Rama, Rama .....
the beautiful mantra that pleases the mind and captivates it.
It is superior even to the thousand names of the Lord
in Sri Vishnu Sahasranamam."

The great Rama-bhakta Saint Tyagaraja, in his Kriti: "Saarame gaani yanyamaarga vichaara metike" sings the greatness of Rama Nama and makes a reference to the above sloka in Vishnu Sahasranamam thus:

"Oh Mind! Rama Namam alone is the precious thing worthy of being coveted. Why bother with the thought of other paths, listening to the words of all and sundry? Did not Sage Narada, who constantly drinks the nectar of Rama's Nama and traverses the whole Universe with the name of Narayana on his lips, lovingly initiate Valmiki with this mantram? ...............Did not Lord Shiva, the Lord of Kailasa, delighting in Samagana, drink the nectar of Rama Nama and, himself unceasingly uttering the holy name, also initiate his beautiful consort Parvati with the Sri Rama Mantram, explaining its great efficacy and significance?"

In the song Evarani Nirnayimchirira, Tyagaraja refers to the interpretation of Rama Nama given by the Rama Rahasyopanishad that it is an essence extracted out of both the Narayana Ashtaakshari Mantra (Om Namo Narayanaya) and Shiva Panchaakshari Mantra (Om Namas Shivaaya) thus:

"What do people determine you to be and how do they worship you? As Shiva, Madhava,as Brahma, or as Para Brahma,the Supreme Absolute? I prostrate before those wise ones who found the solution by extracting and combining the soul of each of the two mantras: Ra from the Narayana Mantra (Ashtaakshari) Om Namo Narayanaya and Ma from the Shiva Mantra "Om Namas Shivaya" -- the Jiva or life of the two mantras. For, if Ra is taken out of the word Narayana (helps as the path of the aspirants), the word becomes Na-ayana when it would mean the opposite: 'it helps not as the path of the aspirant'; and, similarly, if Ma is taken out of 'Namas shivaya' (Hail to the auspicious) the expression becomes Na Shivya meaning the opposite 'not for auspicious'.

The two jivaksharas thus combined forms the name Rama, worshipped and chanted constantly by all bhaktas like Tyagaraja. As a mantra, it is known as Taaraka mantram which helps the bhakta to cross the ocean of samsara .

The Upanishad Brahmam also, after stating the etymology of Rama Nama in this manner, asks:

"Is it any wonder that this Rama Nama Mantram which combines in itself the two powerful syllables from two powerful Mantrams is considered as giving Moksha to the devotee of the Rama Mantram?"

On Mantra:

The word mantra is derived as: “mun thraayathe ithi manthrah” – a mantra is so called because it protects the mind. A mantra helps us to attain release from the grip of the ego-controlled mind and proceed on our spiritual path without obstacles/distractions. The wording and sound of all mantras are public property. Yet the mantra itself is considered as rahasya or secret. The nearest example:- an idol can be seen or even be possessed by us; but, we can realize the deity represented by the idol only if we associate with it certain sanctity, divine characteristics.
The mind, which is to be controlled and overcome must itself first crave a need for such release, and accept the Mantra as an effective aid to the necessary process. It is to develop such implicit acceptance that one approaches a Guru and receive from him with faith, devotion and love the Mantra as a precious gift, to be treasured and practised.

Mahatma Gandhi and Rama Nama Mantram

Nothing could take Gandhiji away from the rock of his faith in Truth, and Rama Nama was the line anchoring him unto it. Up early in the still very dark, early hours of the 25th, Bapu wrote to a friend in Gujarai: "no one can harm a person who is sustained by Ramanama. I believe firmly in this principle. It is by the grace of that God that I am able to remain calm even though there is conflagration all around. Had it not been for Rama Nama, I would have broken down by now. That is why I proclaim at the top of my voice that I dance as Rama wills. We are all in this world to do our duty. I believe that not a leaf moves without his command. Look at the pride of man: he thinks he does everything! But God is magnanimous and only laughs at man's ignorance. Now you will understand where I stand. What I write in the Harijan shows me as I am. I am very clear about the language and in the same way, I am clear about political questions. Let us see what God wills me to do."

Gandhiji himself has traced the origin of his faith in Ramanama to early childhood instruction from his family nurse:
"From my sixth or seventh year up to my sixteenth I was at school, being taught all sorts of things except religion. I may say that I failed to get from my teachers what they could have given me without any effort on their part. ...... But what I failed to get there I obtained from my nurse, an old servant of the family, whose affection for me I still recall. I have said before that there was in me a fear of ghosts and spirits. Rambha, for that was her name, suggested, as a remedy for this fear, the repetition of 'Ramanama'. I had more faith in her than in her remedy, and so at a tender age I began repeating Ramanama to cure my fear of ghosts and spirits. This was of course short lived, but the good seed sown in childhood was not sown in vain. I think it is due to the good seed sown by that good woman Rambha that today Ramanama is an infallible remedy for me."

ON ENDURING RELATIONSHIPS

What is the secret formula for preventing a relationship that was once sweet, loving and charming from becoming bitter and hateful and the two parties drift apart and end their once endearing relationship after a few years? The answer is their refusal to recognize that:

To exist is to change
To change is to mature
To mature is to go on
Creatings oneself endlessly.

Having come together once, impressed by the qualities in each other, they expect the other to continue to possess the same qualities always without losing any of those; they get disappointed and become strangers to each other. They forget that each one of them is not frozen in time; their minds have retained a memory of the past and refuse to recognize that change is an inherent and necessary fact of their passage in the river of life. The measure of the strength of their bond is their willingness to accept the change they perceive in each other and recognize that they themselves have to change to enable a mature relationship grow in strength. This process of change continued and nourished endlessly with love and understanding vests the relationship with a long life.

Many philosophers have commented on the element of Change that is an integral part of our existence. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus has made the famous observation:: "You cannot step in the same river twice" - because the flowing river is ever changing and the individual too is similarly changing. The infant child grows in size and its mind continuously changes. “How you have changed, I cannot recognize you, almost” is a constant refrain of friends and acquaintances meeting after an interval. Expecting one’s partner to remain unchanged is contrary to the life-process.

Kahlil Gibran’s advice:

Let there be spaces in your togetherness,
And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.

Love one another, but make not a bond of love:
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.

Sing and dance together and be joyous, but each one of you be alone,
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.

And stand together yet not too near together;
For the pillars of the temple stand apart.

And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other's shadow.

Rage against of the dying of the light

On Probability Statements:
"The Median is not the Message"
by Stephen Jay Gould

(Late) Stephen Jay Gould was an eminent paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. At an young age (41) he suffered from a serious and rare cancer ‑‑abdominal mesothelioma, associated with exposure to asbestos. Accoording to medical research statistics, mesothelioma is incurable, with a median mortality of eight months after discovery. He however, was fully cured.

In the article reproduced below, Gould discusses the need to interpret statistical data fully and correctly. Rather than giving up hope, he wrote that he used his knowledge of statistics to translate an apparent death sentence into the hopeful realization that half those in whom the disease was diagnosed survived longer than eight months, perhaps much longer, giving him the strength to fight on. He died in 2002 at the age of 60.


"We still carry the historical baggage of a Platonic heritage that seeks sharp essences and definite boundaries. This leads us to view statistical measures of central tendency wrongly -- indeed, opposite to the appropriate interpretation -- in our actual world of variation, shadings and continua. In short, we view means and medians as the hard realities, and the variations that permit their calculation as a set of transient and imperfect measurements of this hidden essence. If the median is the reality and the variation around the median just a device for its calculation, the statement: `I will probably be dead in eight months' may pass as a reasonable interpretation.

But all evolutionary biologists know that variation itself is nature's only irreducible essence. Variation is the hard reality, not a set of imperfect measures for a central tendency. Means and medians are the abstractions. Referring to the statistically derived information about probable death in eight months in the case of those suffering from abdominal mesothemia, Gould observed after examining the complete data which yielded the median of eight months:

"The distribution was strongly rightly skewed and, as I had guessed, with a long tail (however small) to the right that extended for several years above the eight‑month median. I saw no reason why I should not be in that small tail, and I breathed a long sigh of relief. I had read the graph correctly. I had asked the right questions and found the answers. I had obtained, in all probability, that most precious of all possible gifts in the circumstances: substantial time. I didn't have to stop immediately and follow Isaiah's injunction to Hezekiah: `set thine house in order; for thou shalt die and not live.' I would have time to think, plan and fight.

One final point about statistical distributions: they apply only to a prescribed set of circumstances; in this case, to the survival with mesothelioma under conventional modes of treatment. If circumstances changed, the distribution might alter. I was placed on an experimental protocol of treatment, and if fortune holds, will be in the first cohort of a new distribution with a high median and a right tail extending to death by natural causes at an advanced old age. I possessed everyone of the characteristics conferring a probability of longer life: I was young; my disease had been recognized in a relatively early stage. I would receive the nation's best medical treatment; I had the world to live for.

I knew how to read the data properly and not despair. I agree with the preacher of Ecclesiastes that there is a time to live and a time to die and when my skein runs out, I hope to face the end calmly and in my own way. For most situations however, I prefer the more martial view that death is the ultimate enemy and find nothing reproachable in those who rage mightily against the dying of the light.

EVOLUTION

Events of great rarity make history
by (late) Stephen Jay Gould

Nothing much happens for most of the time when evidence abounds; everything happens in largely unrecorded geological moments. We could attribute this pattern to either a devious or humorous God, out to confuse us or merely to chuckle at our frustration. But I choose to look upon this phenomenon in a positive light, for it is trying to tell us something important. There is a lesson, not merely frustration, in the message that change is concentrated in infrequent bursts and that stability is the usual nature of species and systems at any moment.
Evolution has constructed the tree of life; yet, at almost any moment for any species, change is not occurring and stasis prevails. If we then ask, What is the normal nature of a species, the only possible reply is, stability. Yet exquisitely rare change has built the tree of life and made history on a broad scale. The defining property of a species, its normal state, its nature, its appearance at almost any time, is thus contrary to the process that makes history (and new species). If we tried to infer the nature of species from the process that constructs the history of life, we would get everything precisely backward! -- for events of great rarity (but with extensive consequence) make history.
This same tension and contrast exist between human nature and the events that construct our history. We have committed an enormous error in assuming that the behavioral traits involved in history-making events must define the ordinary properties of human nature. Must we not link the causes of our history, or so the false argument goes, to the nature of our being?
But if my analogy holds, precisely the opposite may be true. If rare behaviors make history, then our usual nature must be defined by our ordinary actions in an everyday world that engulfs us nearly all the time, but does not set the fate of nations. The causes of history may be opposed to the ordinary forces that prevail at almost any moment -- just as the processes that construct the tree of life are invisible and inactive nearly all the time within stable species.
History is made by warfare, greed, lust for power, hatred, and xenophobia (with some other, more admirable motives thrown in here and there). We therefore often assume that these obviously human traits define our essential nature. How often have we been told that "man" is, by nature, aggressive and selfishly acquisitive?
What do we see on any ordinary day on the streets or in the homes of any American city -- even in the subways of New York? Thousands of tiny and insignificant acts of kindness and consideration. We step aside to let someone pass, smile at a child, chat aimlessly with an acquaintance or even with a stranger.......Many of us have the impression that daily life is an unending series of unpleasantness ......but think about it seriously for a moment. Such levels of nastiness cannot possibly be sustained. Society would devolve to anarchy in an instant if half our overtures to another human being were met with a pinch in the nose
Why then do most of us have the impression that people are so aggressive, and intrinsically so? The answer, I think, lies in the asymmetry of effects -- the truly tragic side of human existence. Unfortunately, one incident of violence can undo ten thousand acts of kindness, and we easily forget the predominance of kindness over aggression by confusing effect with frequency. One racially motivated beating can wipe out years of patient education for respect and toleration in a school or community. One murder can convert a friendly town, replete with trust, into a nexus of fear with people behind barred doors, suspicious of everyone and afraid to go out at night. Kindness is so fragile, so easy to efface; violence is so powerful.
This crushing and tragic asymmetry of kindness and violence is infinitely magnified when we consider the causes of history in the large. One book burning in the library of Alexandria can wipe out the accumulated wisdom of antiquity. One supposed insult, one crazed act of assassination, can undo decades of patient diplomacy, cultural exchanges, peace corps, pen pals -- small acts of kindness involving millions of citizens -- and bring two nations to a war that no one wants, but that kills millions and irrevocably changes the paths of history.
The alternative view might grant that stability must rule at nearly all moments and that much rarer events make history. But perhaps this stability arises by predominant behaviors of geniality only in relatively free and democratic societies. Perhaps the stability of most cultures has been achieved by the same `dark' forces that make history when they break out of balance -- fear, aggression, terror, domination of rich over poor, men over women, adults over children, and armed over defenseless. I allow that these forces have often kept balances, but still strongly assert that we fail to count the ten thousand ordinary acts of non-aggression -- done if only because people know their places and do not usually challenge the sources of order -- that overwhelm each overt show of strength even in societies structured by domination. To base daily stability on anything other than our natural geniality requires a perverted social structure explicitly dedicated to breaking the human soul -- the Auschwitz model, if you will.........Obviously, both kindness and violence lie within the bounds of our nature because we perpetuate both, in spades. I only advance a structural claim that social stability rules nearly all the time and must be based on an overwhelmingly predominant (but tragically ignored) frequency of genial acts, and that geniality is therefore our usual and preferred response nearly all the time.
This is not an essay about optimism; it is an essay about tragedy. If I felt that humans were nasty by nature, I would just say, the hell with it. We get what we deserve, or what evolution left us as a legacy. But the center of human nature is rooted in ten thousand ordinary acts of kindness that define our days. Nothing can be more tragic than that this Everest of geniality stands upside down on its pointed summit and can be toppled so easily by rare events contrary to our everyday nature -- and that these rare events make our history. In some sense, we do not get what we deserve.
The solution to our woes lies not in overcoming our `nature' but in fracturing the `great asymmetry', and allowing our ordinary propensities to direct our lives. But how can we put the commonplace into the driver's seat of history?
Stephen Jay Gould who wrote this article teaches biology, geology, and the history of science at Harvard University.